Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by SEE

Most of us expected that threads such as this had the same purpose.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29526

It had. The advantage of the bugtracker is it has a voting system.

I can not imagine the 1st entry in this thread which is "The current Ju 87 B is missing a label on the Flaps Control Box" can have the same priority as the missing COOP gamemode which received max number of votes in the tracker so far. (screenshots are missing already btw)

The devs may get their priorities wrong if we do not tell them what the market is asking for.

I do not know what could be Luthier's reaction if he saw "a missing label" being the 1st listed bug in a sticky bug thread. He could think that the sim is not that bad if customers do not have more serious things to place first.

I am not saying these bugs must not be reported. I am saying the bugtracker voting system is the only tool that can let the devs know about community priorities without confusing them.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ataros

The devs may get their priorities wrong if we do not tell them what the market is asking for.

I haven't signed up to the bugtracker as yet, but it seems to me that as this imminent patch may address many issues, or introduce new ones, it would be sensible to hold back and then vote for whatever bugs/features are there/not there after patch release.

[335th_GRAthos]

To all those following the development of the 87 vs XXX octane fuel (XXX= fill in the number as per your discretion), JG52Uther posted a very interesting screenshot on another thread:



~S~

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

To all those following the development of the 87 vs XXX octane fuel (XXX= fill in the number as per your discretion), JG52Uther posted a very interesting screenshot on another thread:



~S~

Thanks for the heads up, I can wait for the sequel.

[Ernst]

Will you think that adding 100 octane add realism? i think not since every time a pilot must take a fresh new ac. In the real thing the pilots did not use 12 boost at will and when they used this was an overloading condition. And the engine lifetime was seriously reduced.

Since the sim has not some way to manage engine weathering since the pilots take a new ac every sortie this ll make the things just unrealistic like now. The lifetime of the ac components were considered while projecting the same. Is really a big thing use a feature that reduce the engine lifetime 5 times?

If the devs implement some kind of model that obligate the pilots to use the same ac (at least in virtual wars, like adw or il2.org.ru) and simulate the cumulating weathering of the engine and random failures of the same due excessive use of overload conditions in previous sorties then the things ll make sense.

It ll be amazing a pilot overconfident about their superplanes using excessive boost at all time in one, two or three sorties and then in the four be surpreside by some random malfunction. Adding advantage without adding the following disadvantages is far from reality. Just my 0,02 cents.

Acctualy the pilots (allies and axis) activate the boost one after another with no interval. Totally unrealistic, since there is not a DM that simulates the effects of the massive use of this overload condition. The things appears more STAR WARS than a sim.

I have to hit the WEP all time too to have some chance. I am so hardcore that i really feel bad using the boost in the unrealistic way. Frustrating...

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Ernst

Will you think that adding 100 octane add realism? i think not since every time a pilot must take a fresh new ac. In the real thing the pilots did not use 100 octane at will and when they used this was an overloading condition. And the engine lifetime was seriously reduced.

Since the sim has not some way to manage engine weathering since the pilots take a new ac every sortie this ll make the things just unrealistic like now. The lifetime of the ac components were considered while projecting the same. Is really a big thing use a feature that reduce the engine lifetime 5 times?

If the devs implement some kind of model that obligate the pilots to use the same ac (at least in virtual wars, like adw or il2.org.ru) and simulate the cumulating weathering of the engine and random failures of the same due excessive use of overload conditions in previous sorties then the things ll make sense.

It ll be amazing a pilot overconfident about their superplanes using excessive boost at all time in one, two or three sorties and then in the four be surpreside by some random malfunction. Adding advantage without adding the following disadvantages is far from reality. Just my 0,02 cents.

Acctualy the pilots (allies and axis) activate the boost one after another with no interval. Totally unrealistic, since there is not a DM that simulates the effects of the massive use of this overload condition. The things appears more STAR WARS than a sim.

I have to hit the WEP all time too to have some chance. I am so hardcore that i really feel bad using the boost in the unrealistic way. Frustrating...

Same goes for the 1min takeoff/combat power of the Bf 109.

[Ernst]

Yes.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by Ernst

Will you think that adding 100 octane add realism? i think not since every time a pilot must take a fresh new ac. In the real thing the pilots did not use 12 boost at will and when they used this was an overloading condition. And the engine lifetime was seriously reduced.

Since the sim has not some way to manage engine weathering since the pilots take a new ac every sortie this ll make the things just unrealistic like now. The lifetime of the ac components were considered while projecting the same. Is really a big thing use a feature that reduce the engine lifetime 5 times?

If the devs implement some kind of model that obligate the pilots to use the same ac (at least in virtual wars, like adw or il2.org.ru) and simulate the cumulating weathering of the engine and random failures of the same due excessive use of overload conditions in previous sorties then the things ll make sense.

It ll be amazing a pilot overconfident about their superplanes using excessive boost at all time in one, two or three sorties and then in the four be surpreside by some random malfunction. Adding advantage without adding the following disadvantages is far from reality. Just my 0,02 cents.

Acctualy the pilots (allies and axis) activate the boost one after another with no interval. Totally unrealistic, since there is not a DM that simulates the effects of the massive use of this overload condition. The things appears more STAR WARS than a sim.

I have to hit the WEP all time too to have some chance. I am so hardcore that i really feel bad using the boost in the unrealistic way. Frustrating...

In Cliffs of Dover the top speed of the Spitfire Mark I and Ia is 240 mph at sea level. (Overboost Control Cut Out yields 0.25 lbs increase in boost 6.25 ---> 6.5 and no measureable increase in engine performance in this sim). The actual speed of the Mark I and Ia Spitfires was 280 mph at 6.25 lbs and 305 mph at 12 lbs. This compares to 273 mph (sea level) of the 109's in this sim. And yes, the 109's are also undermodelled in this sim, just to a lesser degree than the Spitfire Mark I's.

Red pilots are apparently already flying clapped-out Spits, so yes, a functioning 12 lbs boost would be a realistic thing to have in this sim since that would render them as something more than the pitiful joke they're portrayed here. Hopefully Luthier will be convinced, or at least be made aware, of the existence of 100 octane fuel in time for the sequel -- then enable it backwardly compatible with a 2- or 3- year old Cliffs of Dover.

[Sturm_Williger]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

In Cliffs of Dover the top speed of the Spitfire Mark I and Ia is 240 mph at sea level. (Overboost Control Cut Out yields 0.25 lbs increase in boost 6.25 ---> 6.5 and no measureable increase in engine performance in this sim). The actual speed of the Mark I and Ia Spitfires was 280 mph at 6.25 lbs and 305 mph at 12 lbs. This compares to 273 mph (sea level) of the 109's in this sim. And yes, the 109's are also undermodelled in this sim, just to a lesser degree than the Spitfire Mark I's.

Red pilots are apparently already flying clapped-out Spits, so yes, a functioning 12 lbs boost would be a realistic thing to have in this sim ...

Wouldn't getting the base speed fixed be more important than getting 12lb boost added to game ?
Otherwise you may end up getting "normal" speed only by using boost = still not realistic.

ie.
a) top speed problem is a bug.
b) lack of 12lb boost is separate modelling issue.
Getting (a) fixed is (theoretically) easier for the devs than modelling 12lb boost and should be prioritised over (b), don't you think ? Or at least the 2 issues should be kept separate.

[klem]

Originally Posted by Ernst

Will you think that adding 100 octane add realism? i think not since every time a pilot must take a fresh new ac. In the real thing the pilots did not use 12 boost at will and when they used this was an overloading condition. And the engine lifetime was seriously reduced.

Since the sim has not some way to manage engine weathering since the pilots take a new ac every sortie this ll make the things just unrealistic like now. The lifetime of the ac components were considered while projecting the same. Is really a big thing use a feature that reduce the engine lifetime 5 times?

If the devs implement some kind of model that obligate the pilots to use the same ac (at least in virtual wars, like adw or il2.org.ru) and simulate the cumulating weathering of the engine and random failures of the same due excessive use of overload conditions in previous sorties then the things ll make sense.

It ll be amazing a pilot overconfident about their superplanes using excessive boost at all time in one, two or three sorties and then in the four be surpreside by some random malfunction. Adding advantage without adding the following disadvantages is far from reality. Just my 0,02 cents.

Acctualy the pilots (allies and axis) activate the boost one after another with no interval. Totally unrealistic, since there is not a DM that simulates the effects of the massive use of this overload condition. The things appears more STAR WARS than a sim.

I have to hit the WEP all time too to have some chance. I am so hardcore that i really feel bad using the boost in the unrealistic way. Frustrating...

We shouldn't be denied full performance of +12lbs boost just because engine wear and ground crew/maintenance aren't modelled. The RAF Pilots were well aware of the effects of using +12lbs boost, they had to report it on landing, but it would not have stopped them using it when necessary. They would certainly use it if they were in a difficult situation.

As you say we don't run continuing missions that accumulate aircraft wear. If we did and both engine wear, ground repair and resources were modelled the problem would take care of itself.